The Pendragon's Hall

The Iraqi terrorists are good, I'll give them that. They know how to manipulate the western media. With several groups offering to suspend attacks if the US promises to withdraw its forces in two years, the media is going to portray the Muslim fanatics as earnestly seeking to extend the olive branch while the Great Satan runs roughshod over their country. After President Bush had told them to put their turbans where the sun don't shine, he should make a backup offer: Stop your attacks and we can begin reducing troop levels. But don't expect the media to point out that the number of troops present is equal to the number of troops needed to maintain order. No, now the crazies will be portrayed as the serious ones. Well, what else is new?

I think I shall write a parody of Derek Webb, talking about the first modern liberal in recorded history. It was about 2000 years ago and a woman had just poured expensive perfume on the Son of God's head. This liberal prototype commented, "What a waste. This money could have been sold for a year's wages and the money given to the poor." Jesus' only response: "The poor you will always have with you." The spirit of Judas Iscariot is alive and well today, among the speak-easies who bemoan a donation to build a cathedral to the glory of God. I would not want to suggest, of course, that money should not be given to the poor (as a poor college student I am rather in favor of charity). Nevertheless, it is about time to stop griping about how people choose to glorify God with their resources and just be glad you do. Judas didn't care about the poor--the money was going into his pocket. Apparently Judas had a longlost child who went to Africa and began a dynasty of his own--I'm not sure what the first name was but the second had to be Annan. Kofi and his ilk have the audacity to chide the West for the failure to donate to failed causes like Oil For Food, the money from which they are stealing themselves. Intriguing how the knife can cut both ways.

The Pendragon is fully disgusted with his fellow Christians, who in the words of the one they claim to represent, "strain out gnats and swallow camels." Singer/songwriter Derek Webb, displaying the new contemporary ability to exaggerate non-existent problems and ignore real ones, sings: "There are two lies I have heard...you shall not surely die and Jesus was a white, middle-class Republican and you have to be like Him." Liberals excell at setting up straw men--arguments nobody has ever made--and then demolishing them to make themselves feel smart. I have grown up among white, fairly middle-class Christians all my life and I have yet to hear anyone suggest Jesus was a white, middle-class Republican. What we do claim is that the Republican platform fits with our understanding of Jesus' teaching, much better than does the Democratic platform. What people like Webb do is muddy the waters by ignoring Christ's teaching on the sanctity of marriage and the value of human life and instead of actually trying to come to terms with this get all fluffy on "the poor", who, if they ever did improve their lot in life, would work people like Webb out of a job moaning about them. Jesus was not a white, middle class Republican, nobody disputes that, but then again neither is Satan. And the white, middle-class Republicans are just as welcome in the kingdom as the poor blacks starving in Sudan. Earth to pie-in-the-sky Christians: get a life.

There might be a silver lining to the whole separation of church and state scheme liberals keep pushing...if they were completely consistent anyway, which they never are. If the church is not allowed to have some kind of say in public policy, then the state has no right to dictate to the church what its own internal policies shall be. If the church refuses to marry gays, the state cannot force them to do so without violating the imaginary separation. If the church does not want to ordain women, the state cannot force them to do so. It might almost be worth giving up the Ten Commandments in courtrooms and the possibility of an objective teaching of evolution in public schools if liberals would agree to leave Christians alone in the way they run their own affairs. Unfortunately, this won't happen and that is because the whole idea of an absolute "separation of church and state" is an impossibility without one destroying the other. If they must be absolutely separated, then they can, at no time, come in contact with one another. The moment the church speaks out on public policy, the principle is violated; the moment the state forces the church to comply against her will with some element of the state "religion" (which is really all liberalism is in the long run), the principle is violated. We hear a lot about not forcing religious beliefs into secular arenas. Maybe conservatives should respond, instead of getting huffy, with the following deal: We will take down the crosses and sand blast off the Ten Commandments, but in return we demand complete and total autonomy to live our lives according to our beliefs. Such an agreement of course will never happen; Christians are rightly reluctant to give up our rights to share our faith and liberals will never agree to a world where people live in complete personal freedom. But it is a charming idea.

I'm glad an "anonymous" reader is still convinced by liberal fairy-tales--they are charming stories with the added advantage that they do not require the reader to live in the real world. But the fairy tale she ought to be reading is "The Horse and His Boy" by C.S. Lewis. In the end, Prince Rabadash (modeled on a Turkish sultan) is captured, making a dastardly sneak attack (one almost might say, an act of terrorism) on his peaceable northern neighbors. Confronted by Aslan, the prince is offered a choice: accept mercy and return to his homeland unscathed or feel the wrath of the Lion. Determined not to be bowed, the Prince calls Aslan a "demon." Aslan replies sadly, "The hour has struck," and forthwith the Prince is transformed into a donkey. The words Aslan spoke to the Prince echo strangely true in Zarqawi's case: "Forget your pride...what have you to be proud of? Forget your anger...who has done you wrong? Accept the mercy of these good kings." Zarqawi need not have taken up the insurgency in Iraq; he could have surrendered and been held, like Saddam Hussein, for trial (probably in better conditions than the one he died in) but his pride and his delusion led him to pay the ultimate price. One does not close "The Horse and His Boy" thinking that Aslan provoked Rabadash to attack and then judged him for it. People who think that Jesus is all fun and games may not recognize Him at the Second Coming...as one person put it: "On the cross Jesus cared for His enemies; but now His care will be for His friends."

People will of course ask the well-meaning but essentially ignorant question--"Shouldn't a Christian forgive Zarqawi?" The answer should be painfully obvious and is echoed well in the words of Judah ben-Hur: "No man can forgive a crime against the innocent. Only God can forgive on such a scale." Of course one the reasons the religious leaders of His day hated Jesus was that He claimed the authority to forgive sins and no one can do that except the one offended, that is God. But those who think that it is wrong to rejoice in the downfall of evil would do well to reread their Bibles and pay attention this time. The prophecies of the Old Testament are filled with references to judgment. But even the NT book of Revelation which contains countless scraps of old hymns has two entire chapters dedicated to a song celebrating the downfall of Babylon. Apparently the God who takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked does take pleasure in the triumph of justice. If Nick Berg were summoned from beyond the grave, he could choose to forgive the personal wrong done him. The United States government cannot and should not forgive such a crime. Zarqawi had his chance. Now he will pay for all eternity. Fallen is Babylon, repaid before our eyes for all the evil she has done--thanks be to God.

In Greenfield, MA this past week for the wedding of my best friend, the Pendragon was unfortunately absent from a computer when the biggest breakthrough in the war on terror in months occurred. I speak of course of the killing of Iraqi terrorist al-Zarqawi. This is only good news. Democrats will of course immediately predict the success of the war and when the insurgency does not stop will say Bush has let the country down. This is what they have been saying for three years and it hasn't gotten them a thing. Even the average American understands that Bush cannot be held accountable for not fulfilling promises his political enemies have made.

Yet even amid the deserved rejoicing at the death of the monster, irritation creeps back in. The father of beheaded contractor Nick Berg announced that Zarqawi should not have been killed but captured and made to work in a hospital for "maimed children." This would have miraculously transformed him into a better person and now that's not possible. My real answer contains several words and names I would not like to have traced to me, so I'll go with the abridged version. How stupid is this guy? A lady who lost her journalist-husband in Iraq to the same group was unwilling to speak ill of Mr. Berg but she noted, "If I was told, 'Behind that door are the men who killed your husband, and you can lock it and forgive them or go in there and wreak what vengeance you want,' I'll give you two guesses which I would choose and to be fair, the first one won't count." Amen and amen. Putting a child-murderer in charge of injured children is not the way to solve the problem. Let's put child molesters in charge of orphanages. Zarqawi deserved everything he got...actually much more. I would have been happier with a slower, more painful death. But I'll take what I can get. The war on terror is progressing. Terrorism will not stand.

The big news this past week has been the foiled terrorist plot in Toronto, Canada. Apparently the arrested suspects had ties to Al-Qaida (who else?) and more explosives than were used at the Oklahoma City bombing, which they planned on detonating on the Toronto subways. This break came as a reeling shock to those who contend that appeasement is the policy of choice with terrorists. They thought Canada was "safe." Look for the media to claim that terrorists now target Canada as a result of the conservative (and highly popular) government of Stephen Harper. This is as bogus as the claims that the particular misdeeds of the Bush administration are to blame for 9/11. An intriguing parallel to Harry Potter suggests itself to the Pendragon: At the end of the most recent book, with the Headmaster of Hogwarts murdered by a follower of the evil Lord Voldemort, the teachers discuss closing the school but the Potions professor notes, "Hogwarts is no more dangerous than anywhere else." By implication, the rural countryside is no safer. It is the same in the war on terror. We're in no less danger in Canada than in the United States, no less in the middle of Nowhere, New York, than in the heart of Toronto. Terrorists hate the West. They want to kill us all. If they can't hit us one place, they'll try another. This is not to counsel despair but courage. There is no negotiation with someone whose goal is your destruction, but a recognition of the true motivation of these terrorists can inspire the courage to stand against them. If one place is no safer than another, it is also no more dangerous. It is the reason I remain a steadfast supporter of the war in Iraq--if the terrorists are fighting our troops on the ground there, they can't be over here, blowing up buildings. It helps make us safer just by that recognition. But we must be vigilant. Our enemies do not rest; neither must we. Canada is only the most recent country to recognize this, and thankfully, they did so without sustaining a terror attack that killed thousands of civilians. I only hope France and Germany will be so lucky.

I guess this fits.....

Your Political Profile:

Overall: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Social Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Ethics: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

I normally try not to get involved with petitions and so forth, as mostly they are a big waste of time. But I have found one truly worth signing, even though it's chances of success are a shot in the dark. So I urge anyone who reads this blog to sig the petition to censure Jimmy Carter. The man is a complete disgrace (even the Felon-in-chief called him a "treasonous prick") and he, far more than any politician in recent memory, deserves official censure by the United States government. In times of war, he fraternized with the enemies of his country; he has given both moral and actual support to terrorists and dictatorial regimes worldwide and he has undermined the government of his own country, not by private, within-the-US disagreements, which of course are fine, but with public statements issued beside grinning representatives of countries who hate us. The definition of treason is vague, but he fits the bill to the letter. Unfortunately, he will never be given the appropriate penalty; censure would be a good compromise.